RUSSIA AND PEACE

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 August 1946, Page 7

RUSSIA AND PEACE

MOLOTOV'S SPEECH AT CONFERENCE AUSTRALIA AND JUSTICE LONDON, August 1. In his speech at the Paris Conference, Mr. Molotov said that the world now knew that Fascism and aggression went hand-in-hand. That explained why all the peace treaties submitted to the conference specially referred to the necessity of preventing, a revival of Fascism and to the necessity of consolidating democratic foundations in the States which were former satellites of Germany. “If, however, we have still to deal with the question of the Fascist- regime in Spain,” he said, “then the time must not be too distant when the democratic countries will be able to help the Spanish people who groan under Franco’s regime to put an end to this survival bred by Hitler and Mussolini, which is dangerous to the cause of peace.” The Big and the Small. Fully agreeing that the big States should not impose their wills on small countries, Mr. Molotov added: “On the other hand we cannot overlook the fact that the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers are at present assailed by all sorts of reactionary elements who are -stuffed with absurd-anti-Soviet prejudices, and who base their calculations on frustrating cooperation among the Great Powers. The draft of peace treaties submitted to the conference will deal a new blow to these gentlemen.” Mr. Molotov emphasised/ that every representative had an opportunity to state his views freely and express agreement or disagreement with any part of a peace treaty. “The views ol the States who are former satellites of Germany will also be heard,” he said. “The Soviet delegation has no doubt that to the voices of these States we shall also listen with due attention. “Justice demands above all that we have regard in practice for the interests of countries which were attacked and suffered as a result of aggression. The Soviet Union intends to support all peoples who have suffered from aggression in their just demands for the punishment of war criminals and indemnification for damage caused to them.” Australia Urges Equal Status. Dr. H. V. Evatt (Australia) said that Australia desired to make the conference a reality, not a mere formality, and to do everything possible to ensure that peace was based on principles of justice and right and was attained by democratic methods. Australian opinion had never been in doubt that the right of making peace belonged to all the nations who were partners in achieving victory. Enough had been said to justify the - certain conclusion that each of the 21 nations had an equal rank and voice at the conference.

Much depended, said Dr. Evatt, on whether the sponsoring Powers would follow the example of San Francisco and be prepared to hear co-belliger-ents not as suppliants, advocates, or consultants, but as partners who had proved their worth in the struggle against the enemy. Dr. Evatt said they should remember certain fundamental principles. These were: —

(1) To adhere to the Atlantic Charter’s undertakings and ensure that its principles were applied as fully as possible. (2) To ensure that recommendations and decisions were based on a thorough examination of all the relevant facts.

(3) Not to impose such unjustifiable burdens or humiliations on the five former enemy countries as to prevent the growth of genuinely democratic forces or foster a resurgence of Fascism.

(4) To attain a just and durable over-all peace structure and not merely settle one by one a series of particular isolated claims of individuals or nations against their neighbours.

Views of Draft Treaties.

Dr. Evatt said that, while he appreciated the work put into the draft treaties, it was an obligation as well as a right for the nations who did not share in the preparation of the drafts to analyse them in the light of sound general principles, and to make con- - structive criticisms and specific recommendations. Australia favoured, where _ necessary, the appointment of special factfinding committees to prepare reports on the material which the conference commissions required for the frontier provisions of the treaties. Australia thought the future administration of the Italian colonies should rest not with< the Foreign Ministers’ Council but with all countries, such as Australia, which, through their losses and sacrifices in liberating the territories, had earned a vital interest in their disposal. < : Dr. Evatt said it seemed that there might be another difficulty in giving the Security Council discretionary, powers in relation to Trieste, when any council decision could be blocked by the use of the veto.